ry, and to those who might hereafter read his protestations. He
had apparently forgotten that just four years before he had complained
to the same Lord Orrery, that the Dean had denied his request when he
wished to insert some of the letters in the quarto of 1737.[153] The
monument he was eager to erect to their friendship in 1737, he
repudiated in 1741. He affirmed that he could have proposed a better,
but never hinted what it was; or at least of choicer materials, but
never troubled himself further about them. This was the smallest part of
the contradiction. He refused his consent to the reprint of the book
sent to Dublin, and had even tried, he told Allen, to stop it by threats
of law. It is true, he confessed to Mr. Nugent at the outset, and
continued to confess to Allen, that he had no hope of prevailing; but
his efforts are not the less the measure of his pretended disgust. Yet
he instantly appropriated the correspondence he was anxious to stifle in
its birth, contrived to anticipate the Dublin edition, incorporated the
entire collection into his works, and published it simultaneously in
folio, quarto, and octavo. He stated in the prefatory notice, that he
had refused to revise the letters, because they were committed to the
press without his consent; but the annoyance which would not permit him
to revise the letters was no check to his haste in adopting, or to his
zeal in circulating them. For a man who was "quite uneasy" at their
appearance, his eagerness to countenance, to parade, and to propagate
them was amazing, and the manifest duplicity is not the least forcible
of the arguments which bring the whole contrivance home to Pope.
Warburton applauded him for the little resentment "he expressed at the
indiscretion of his old friend." He affected far more than his advocate
supposed; but if it had been otherwise it is strange that Warburton
should not have perceived that to talk of resentment was ridiculous when
the poet was espousing "the indiscretion," and was doing his utmost to
disseminate the letters he feigned a wish to suppress.

Curll republished the letters under the title of "Dean Swift's Literary
Correspondence." Pope filed a bill in Chancery against Curll on June 4,
1741. The poet not only demanded protection for his own letters, but
desired that the bookseller should be restrained from vending the
letters of Swift, who was not a party to the suit, nor had commissioned
any one to interfere on his behalf